[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]You could use Cruise missiles on conventional submarines instead of the Trident system. The disadvantages are that Trident is 95% likely to succesfully destroy a city/country where as the Cruise missile is about 85%. As Trident is a deterrent - (it has failed if it is ever used), do you think those relative odds would make a difference to an aggressor? Would save billions and make the cutting process far less painful.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, I do not want to dig about having to find my woolly hat and woolly mind again!
And this is the failure of our democratic process! All these options could/should have been costed and people could have voted on how fast to cut the deficit and the best ways to do it... so we've had an election where the two largest parties have adopted a Blair like tactic that it's not in the public interest to discuss the cost / benefit of Trident... costing £20Bn + extras
And cuts to child benefit don't appear on anyone's manifesto but are proposed in order to save £1Bn
My point about talent and money relates to Germany (and Italys) ability to produce quality cars including remodelling the Mini whereas all we get is a load of spivs taking over Rover!
Off It, presuming you are married, I think the likelihood is that there will be a marriage tax allowance introduced so your wife can transfer her !0k tax free to you in addition to your £10k so you''ll be a net winner overall from this - assuming it happens
Regarding Trident you have to be careful to avoid static analysis - just because we don't need it now doesn't mean we won't need it tomorrow.
The question is whether we need to buy it now - or whether it can wait a year or five, and fall behind other priorities. In any case there are too many jobs in defence for it to be ignored and a lot of those jobs are in areas where the Lib-Dems are strong - Scotland for example where a lot of the overhaul work is scheduled to be carried out. If Trident is cancelled then the loss of jobs would hit the Lib-Dems electorally.
Of course some of the cuts being made are idealogical despite what they say. This tax affects the more affluent but the less affluent of the more affluent disproportionately. Some households with single salaries can creep in to the top band- they can have large transport and commuting costs and are being penalised for trying to do the best for their kids which is in the interests of the country in the long term. As people have already said, losing a universal benefit is dangerous and this will/could ultimately impact on the poor.
I meant to say large housing and commuting costs. As for Trident - we could find a cheaper alternative to create more jobs. I'm not saying we don't need a deterrent either- just that there are much cheaper alternatives. If you think there is a 85% chance of retaliation it would put you off just the same as if you thought there was a 95% chance I would speculate.
Everybody knows cuts have to be made, but nobody wants them on their doorstep so we come up with things like Trident as none of realistically know what the effect on us as individuals is. I note with interest that the follow-up announcement about tax breaks for married couples hasn't factored into this row much.
[cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]Off It, presuming you are married, I think the likelihood is that there will be a marriage tax allowance introduced so your wife can transfer her !0k tax free to you in addition to your £10k so you''ll be a net winner overall from this - assuming it happens
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.
its a fair point though and used to be with the mother I think, now I guess it would be the designated home of the child, not sure what happens in joint custody though
My initial thoughts on the individualisation of the benefits (the £45k v 2 X £40k argument) was that it was done because the only way they can identify 'couples' is if they're married. A couple, each on £40k, would then be discouraged from marrying because they would 'lose' the benefit. Since encouraging marriage is stated Tory policy (because of the supposed benefits for communities and children's upbringing), they don't want to do anything that would reduce it.
Child benefit isn't paid as some sort of income for scroungers or to encourage procreation (as someone said, if the main reason why you're having kids is the money, then you're not going to be a great parent). It's paid so that the child can have a minimum standard of living. The giveaway is in the name -it's for the child. Children of families with an income over £45k will get that minimum standard of living anyway, so there is a reasonable argument to say it's not necessary that they also receive child benefit. There is some merit to the argument about universality and talk about how just because a father (or mother where there's a stay-at-home dad) receives an income doesn't mean his/her spouse or children will see any of it, but I think it's not hugely unreasonable to believe that children in these households are doing OK, and limited resources could be more effectively spent.
The point about the BNP, as I read it, was that a minority of people are affected by this, since only 15% of the population earn more than £43k. Why are the concerns of a (relatively) wealthy minority receiving so much concern when there are problems across the country?
Finally, this is what happens when no hard questions are asked during an election about cuts. When the Tories did talk about cuts, their popularity dipped. I suppose people don't want to believe that they might be affected by cuts. It's all good in theory, but not on my doorstep.
So you are advocating a flat tax and a basic benefit entitlement, I like the sound of that. I think the reason those affected by the child benefit cut are offish about it is because it has been announced on its own, where we are easily the biggest losers. If all the cuts were announced together you could get a better feel for where the burden lies. The suspicion is though that those of us just in the higher tax band with a single income will suffer disproportionately again when more cuts are announced. It is not us that caused the mess the country is in, but so far we are the ones who have been singled out, I could understand them wanting to make the higher earners pay more, but if they wanted to be fair they should stop all universal benefits, I'm sure people like Philip Green could get by without their winter fuel allowance, paid to every pensioner, even those who spend the winter in sunnier climes but have a state pension, not just those people who are working and striving to bring up kids. Why was this announced on its own ahead of the CSR in the next couple of weeks?
I want to see the real wealthy 'share the pain' and those who scrounge off the state, not just statements about how they are very naughty, but cuts in benefits as time goes on. Plus why should the state pay for any children they have whilst on benefits? If you enter benefits with 1 child, that is all you should be paid for. Encouraging welfare dependancy is no good to the claimants or the tax payer. Unfortunately the fear of not wanting to be seen as the nasty party will mean that any real attempts at change will probably be watered down to the extent that the doleies will run rings round them.
aye but that 15% are probably disproportionately more likely to vote, and probably more likely to have voted tory this time.. not forgetting its a hung parliament
Saga that's true but this makes it seem they are hammering hardworking families, yet the rhetoric said otherwise, and despite that group being less likely to have disposable income to spare - why not just up the basic rate of tax and make everyone pay a bit of the deficit, now that would be fair
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Saga that's true but this makes it seem they are hammering hardworking families, yet the rhetoric said otherwise, and despite that group being less likely to have disposable income to spare - why not just up the basic rate of tax and make everyone pay a bit of the deficit, now that would be fair
The Tories would tradditionally look after big business at the expense of the workers, so no surprise there.
Looking back to its origins, the child benefit started out post war as a way to encourage people to re-populate our battered country and extra money was paid for the second and third child. Then the idea shifted so that the state acknowledged that families deserved recognition for the extra financial burdens they would bear in rearing the next generation and it thus evolved into a universal benefit for all children and was eventually paid to mothers. But we now live in a very different and affluent age, so I think it's fair to take a look at the whole benefits system and the ridiculous bureaucracies it has spawned. But I also want to look at the ways in which the very rich exploit tax loop holes and shelter their wealth. Provided that the genuinely needy are well provided for ( and this is not easy to do), and provided that the very rich take a proportional hit as well, I'm not averse to discouraging welfare dependancy, in fact it could be a very positive thing to do. But it would need to be a cohesive, well considered long term plan and to be just and fair before I'll buy into it. No-one likes having money taken away but I think it could gather public support if it is seen to be fair. My fear with the Tories is that they will always find ways to protect their wealth and disproportionately hit the poorest and neediest. The current Churchillian mode adopted by Cameron worries me, appeals to naked patriotism always worry me, but time will tell.
These all seem to be good, fair proposals I'm sorry to say. Can't see any reason at all that people who don't work and don't have any wish to work should be getting more than 26k. A damn sight less, to be honest. Plenty folk like nurses flog their guts out for the public good, manage on a lot less. I appreciate that with a larger family this means that there's not going to be money for any luxury, but it's always been my thought that smartphones, flatscreens, Sky and fags aren't basic human rights. They're stuff that you can get if you graft for them. That view seems to have shifted somewhere in the last while.
Of all the views expressed here I found Ken's (from way back on pp1) the most interesting. All too often people are selfish so they'll decry a sensible or fair move purely based on its effect on them rather than any real concern with parity, so it's nice to see someone actually not doing that. The idea about moving funding into child care is a great one: incentivise people on lower incomes into the workplace. Could be managed through a tax break, I reckon it's a great idea.
" It is not us that caused the mess the country is in,"
I'd just like to point out that we all like to blame banker for the mess, and you are implying that no bankers earn over £44k so wont be the people losing the benefit.
Whereas I would say all bankers who were involved in the credit crisis earn well over £44k and at least some will have children.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]Off It, presuming you are married, I think the likelihood is that there will be a marriage tax allowance introduced so your wife can transfer her !0k tax free to you in addition to your £10k so you''ll be a net winner overall from this - assuming it happens[/quote]
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.[/quote]
Im with you on this Offit, my other half at the mo a zero income, tho when she goes back will have 40+ which takes us over the 'limit'. We worked out that we would be better off if i moved back into the house I rent out and she claimed every thing as a single parent ! System is bollox
... and to add to that it was largely normal people borrowing lolly that they failed to pay back that actually put the banks in a mess. That seems to have morphed into being the fault of "greedy bankers" because that's easier than blaming greedy/daft people. Now politicians are pressuring banks to take away some of the lending contraints that they've put in place, basically because people are moaning that it's tough for them to get mortgages and loans.
Also, this free-cash bail out the banks got was actually in the form of preference shares, which will get paid back @ 8% interest. Not what people want to hear I know, but there hasn't been any handouts to rich (and indeed not-so-rich) bankers. Never mind though, lets keep blaiming them for all our ills.
[cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]Off It, presuming you are married, I think the likelihood is that there will be a marriage tax allowance introduced so your wife can transfer her !0k tax free to you in addition to your £10k so you''ll be a net winner overall from this - assuming it happens
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.
Im with you on this Offit, my other half at the mo a zero income, tho when she goes back will have 40+ which takes us over the 'limit'. We worked out that we would be better off if i moved back into the house I rent out and she claimed every thing as a single parent ! System is bollox
Fair play if you're prepared to forgo rental income and living with the family in order to get some benefits. Personally I don't see it as bollox that high rate tax payers won't keep getting benefits when the country is short of money for basic services.
[cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]Off It, presuming you are married, I think the likelihood is that there will be a marriage tax allowance introduced so your wife can transfer her !0k tax free to you in addition to your £10k so you''ll be a net winner overall from this - assuming it happens
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.
Im with you on this Offit, my other half at the mo a zero income, tho when she goes back will have 40+ which takes us over the 'limit'. We worked out that we would be better off if i moved back into the house I rent out and she claimed every thing as a single parent ! System is bollox
I would be better off if I sold smack on the streets.
I strangely don't find the desire to acquire money quite strong enough to want to break the law for it.
I don't think anyone who is bemoaning the loss of this benefit is doing so because they will be personally hit, I'm certainly not and fully support efforts to reduce the state, it is being singled out I don't like. On top of this I hear the rail companies will be allowed to charge up to 10% a year fare increase to make up for reduced subsidies, tax allowances will be frozen or reduced for middle and high income earners, VAT is going up, childcare allowances that mean I can purchase vouchers to help my kids nursery costs tax free are likely to go, I have a 2 year (at least) pay freeze and will have to contribute more in pension contributions. By my reckoning I will be about £5k down a year in 3 years time. Super rich will have the same hit, how is that fair? Plus the chavs won't lose out in the benefit cap, it will be landlords who charge stupid rents because they know the state will pay it, about time they were stopped doing this. You also have to remember their £26k is net of (non existent) tax to them, so really over £40k. They will still get enough to live comfortably at our expense with no big incentive to change their behaviour, that is why benefits should be fixed, no extra for extra kids on the state and no inflation based or RPI based increases, no one else is getting pay increases so why should they? I worked for 6 years for the DHSS and it used to sicken me to see them, supported by CAB and their like, finding every loophole possible to claim a few quid more when genuinely poor pensioners without a large private pension, who would not dream of asking for more suffer.
I'm all for cuts to the state, but fair does not mean picking on only those who work to better themselves and provide for their families.
They should stop child benefit completely, it is deducted from income support and tax and child credits so what is the point of it. That would be fair. As I mentioned before the nothern monkeys employed in the child benefit centre could be redeployed to hound benefit cheats and tax avoiders if all they are worried about is a few thousand more unemployed notherners.
praps they should reintroduce the lower band of tax that brown brought in then abolished, then put up what is the basic rate, that way not penalising parents which seems to be the case at the moment
child benefits and vouchers are claw backs for people who pay tax cos they have kids, they aren't benefits
[quote][cite]Posted By: RedArmySE7[/cite]Am I right in understanding they're also planning to cap monthly household benefits to £500?[/quote]
Yes, think this is to do with the massive payouts as rent, this is up for abuse. The payments go to the tennant NOT the landlord, (i know this i am one). The tennant can then spend the 'cash' ! The abuse comes in when the Landlord 'sets' a higher rental rate and 'splits' the cash with his tennant who is a friend , easy !
Spot on andy, the 'landlord' often strikes a deal or is related to the tenant and they connive to fiddle the state. It was happneing 25 years ago when I was at the DHSS and can only imagine the extent of it now. One good thing that Labour did do was tighten up on self employment in the building trade, making them pay up front and be on the cards, even though they still only pay 20% or so and can claim back from that, why should they be able to pay so little when everyone else is being shafted, especially as they never declare it all anyway. This goes for taxi drivers, especially in London, I wonder what figure taxi drivers that are declaring? Other than black cabs that may well be forced by in-cab systems to declare? Self employed get off very lightly, I am all for encouraging entrepreneurs, but how much entrepreneurship do you require to sit in a car outside the venue (is it still open) and drive people home. I agree it is not a job I would do, but them, hairdressers, nail technicians etc are the ones that pay little or no tax and the child benefit agency staff could be better employed to chase if they did away with child benefits entirely. The more senior staff and finance people should be tasked with tax avoiders at the top end. We need a few examples to be set like they do in the states. If a few high progile dodgers at the top end were jailed then others would be quicker to yield.
Comments
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, I do not want to dig about having to find my woolly hat and woolly mind again!
And cuts to child benefit don't appear on anyone's manifesto but are proposed in order to save £1Bn
My point about talent and money relates to Germany (and Italys) ability to produce quality cars including remodelling the Mini whereas all we get is a load of spivs taking over Rover!
The question is whether we need to buy it now - or whether it can wait a year or five, and fall behind other priorities. In any case there are too many jobs in defence for it to be ignored and a lot of those jobs are in areas where the Lib-Dems are strong - Scotland for example where a lot of the overhaul work is scheduled to be carried out. If Trident is cancelled then the loss of jobs would hit the Lib-Dems electorally.
I note with interest that the follow-up announcement about tax breaks for married couples hasn't factored into this row much.
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.
its a fair point though and used to be with the mother I think, now I guess it would be the designated home of the child, not sure what happens in joint custody though
My initial thoughts on the individualisation of the benefits (the £45k v 2 X £40k argument) was that it was done because the only way they can identify 'couples' is if they're married. A couple, each on £40k, would then be discouraged from marrying because they would 'lose' the benefit. Since encouraging marriage is stated Tory policy (because of the supposed benefits for communities and children's upbringing), they don't want to do anything that would reduce it.
Child benefit isn't paid as some sort of income for scroungers or to encourage procreation (as someone said, if the main reason why you're having kids is the money, then you're not going to be a great parent). It's paid so that the child can have a minimum standard of living. The giveaway is in the name -it's for the child. Children of families with an income over £45k will get that minimum standard of living anyway, so there is a reasonable argument to say it's not necessary that they also receive child benefit. There is some merit to the argument about universality and talk about how just because a father (or mother where there's a stay-at-home dad) receives an income doesn't mean his/her spouse or children will see any of it, but I think it's not hugely unreasonable to believe that children in these households are doing OK, and limited resources could be more effectively spent.
The point about the BNP, as I read it, was that a minority of people are affected by this, since only 15% of the population earn more than £43k. Why are the concerns of a (relatively) wealthy minority receiving so much concern when there are problems across the country?
Finally, this is what happens when no hard questions are asked during an election about cuts. When the Tories did talk about cuts, their popularity dipped. I suppose people don't want to believe that they might be affected by cuts. It's all good in theory, but not on my doorstep.
Got in a big argument about this in economics last week
I want to see the real wealthy 'share the pain' and those who scrounge off the state, not just statements about how they are very naughty, but cuts in benefits as time goes on. Plus why should the state pay for any children they have whilst on benefits? If you enter benefits with 1 child, that is all you should be paid for. Encouraging welfare dependancy is no good to the claimants or the tax payer. Unfortunately the fear of not wanting to be seen as the nasty party will mean that any real attempts at change will probably be watered down to the extent that the doleies will run rings round them.
Phew, glad to get that off my chest.
These are tough times. As I said above none of the parties wanted to talk about cuts or the deficit because those topics were not vote winners.
The Tories would tradditionally look after big business at the expense of the workers, so no surprise there.
............................................
Chancellor George Osborne has announced plans for a maximum limit on the amount of benefits one family can claim.
He told the Conservative conference the cap would be set at the amount "the average family gets for going out to work", which is about £26,000 a year.
The cap will apply to the combined income from benefits including things like jobseekers allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
An estimated 50,000 households may be affected by the cap, planned for 2013.
Of all the views expressed here I found Ken's (from way back on pp1) the most interesting. All too often people are selfish so they'll decry a sensible or fair move purely based on its effect on them rather than any real concern with parity, so it's nice to see someone actually not doing that. The idea about moving funding into child care is a great one: incentivise people on lower incomes into the workplace. Could be managed through a tax break, I reckon it's a great idea.
I'd just like to point out that we all like to blame banker for the mess, and you are implying that no bankers earn over £44k so wont be the people losing the benefit.
Whereas I would say all bankers who were involved in the credit crisis earn well over £44k and at least some will have children.
So that statement is far from true.
I'd better get a ring on her finger then!
Serious point though. What if the kids weren't mine and we were living over the brush - would that make a difference? Should it make a difference? What happens if you no longer live with your missus/kids but have a responsibility for their upkeep? And then what happens if she moves another fella in for a bit who is a higher rate taxpayer? Then say he disappears and she moves another one in who is on the dole? Do I stop paying when the firsst bloke comes in or not? If I do, do I have to start paying again when the dole merchant rocks up?
Questions questions. I feel a trip to the Jeremy Kyle studios coming on here.[/quote]
Im with you on this Offit, my other half at the mo a zero income, tho when she goes back will have 40+ which takes us over the 'limit'. We worked out that we would be better off if i moved back into the house I rent out and she claimed every thing as a single parent ! System is bollox
Also, this free-cash bail out the banks got was actually in the form of preference shares, which will get paid back @ 8% interest. Not what people want to hear I know, but there hasn't been any handouts to rich (and indeed not-so-rich) bankers. Never mind though, lets keep blaiming them for all our ills.
I would be better off if I sold smack on the streets.
I strangely don't find the desire to acquire money quite strong enough to want to break the law for it.
Good job its only the bankers who are greedy ;-)
I'm all for cuts to the state, but fair does not mean picking on only those who work to better themselves and provide for their families.
They should stop child benefit completely, it is deducted from income support and tax and child credits so what is the point of it. That would be fair. As I mentioned before the nothern monkeys employed in the child benefit centre could be redeployed to hound benefit cheats and tax avoiders if all they are worried about is a few thousand more unemployed notherners.
child benefits and vouchers are claw backs for people who pay tax cos they have kids, they aren't benefits
Yes, think this is to do with the massive payouts as rent, this is up for abuse. The payments go to the tennant NOT the landlord, (i know this i am one). The tennant can then spend the 'cash' !
The abuse comes in when the Landlord 'sets' a higher rental rate and 'splits' the cash with his tennant who is a friend , easy !